An a!ordance-based approach toarchitectural theory, design, and practice

Jonathan R. A.Maier andGeorgesM. Fadel,Clemson Research in Engineering

Design and Optimization (CREDO) Laboratory, Department of Mechanical

Engineering, Clemson University, 135 Fluor Daniel, EIB, Clemson,

SC 29634-0921, USA

Dina G. Battisto, Department of Architecture, Clemson University, Clemson,

SC 29634-0921, USA

The idea of a!ordance, borrowed from perceptual psychology, is applied to the

domain of architecture. As to architectural theory, a!ordances can be used as

a conceptual framework to understand the relationship between environments

and occupants, especially with respect to form and function. Regarding

architectural design, the concept of a!ordance allows for a common theoretical

basis to improve the design process. Concerning architectural practice,

a!ordances can be used as a tool to explore the connection between the

intentions of the design with how the artifact is actually used, leading to archived

knowledge, and the potential for avoiding common design failures.

Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Keywords: architectural design, design theory, design practice, design process,

theory of a!ordances

‘Architecture and design do not have a satisfactory theoretical basis,’

wrote psychologist James J. Gibson three decades ago. He then

asked ‘Can an ecological approach to the psychology of percep-

tion and behavior provide it?’ (Gibson, 1976). Clearly his opinion was yes,

and we agree. In this article we expand upon this idea by applying Gibson’s

concept of a!ordance to the design of artifacts in general and in particular

to the domain of architecture. In previous work we have applied the concept

of a!ordance more specifically to the field of engineering design, where we

have argued that the concept of a!ordance is more fundamental than other ex-

tant concepts, particularly that of function (Maier and Fadel, 2001, 2002; cf.,

Brown and Blessing, 2005). In this article we argue that, as in engineering, the

concept of a!ordance is more fundamental to architecture than other often

studied concepts, particularly that of form. One of our goals in this paper is

therefore to show how the idea of a!ordances applies to a theoretical basis

for architecture, in an answer to Gibson’s provocative question.

Corresponding author:Jonathan R. A. Maierjmaier@ces.clemson.edu

www.elsevier.com/locate/destud0142-694X $ - see front matter Design Studies 30 (2009) 393e414doi:10.1016/j.destud.2009.01.002 393Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Our application of a!ordances to architecture rests upon three main proposi-

tions, which we explore in the remainder of this paper. First, as to architectural

theory, we assert that a!ordances can be used as a conceptual framework to

understand the relationship between built environments and humans over

time, especially with respect to the form, function, and meaning of architec-

tural elements. Second, regarding architectural design, we propose that the

concept of a!ordance allows for a common theoretical basis to improve the

design process by o!ering a shared language among those involved in a design

project, particularly architects and engineers. Third, regarding architectural

practice, we believe that a!ordances may be used as an evaluation tool to ex-

plore the connection between the initial intentions or objectives of the design

with how the artifact is actually used, leading to archived knowledge for use in

future projects, and the potential for avoiding an array of common design

failures.

In this regard we echo and expand upon some points made by Koutamanis in

his application of the idea of a!ordance to building elements and spaces. He

states ‘A!ordances promise integration of di!erent viewpoints (architects, en-

gineers, clients, users) and continuity, i.e., compatible expressions of function-

ality and usability throughout the lifecycle of a building (briefing, design and

use). This holds promise for the codification of design knowledge: a!ordances

could support direct matching of an existing building or type to a specific brief,

thus allowing for early evaluation and refinement of design or briefing choices’

(Koutamanis, 2006). Before expanding upon these ideas further, the concept

of a!ordance needs to be explored and understood, as presented in the next

section.

1 A generalized theory of a!ordances

1.1 History of the idea of a!ordanceThe perceptual psychologist James J. Gibson first put forward the theory of

a!ordances. In other work, the present authors have expanded upon this

theory, and identified new application areas (Maier and Fadel, 2001, 2002,

2003, 2005, 2007, in press). Following our introduction of the concept

into the engineering design community, other authors have also begun using

the concept of a!ordance within engineering design and industrial design re-

search (e.g., Galvao and Sato, 2004, 2005, 2006; Brown and Blessing, 2005;

Kim et al., 2007). In this section, we briefly review our generalized theory of

a!ordances (see Maier, 2005, Maier and Fadel, in press, for a more complete

discussion) with a focus on its applicability to architecture. We begin with

Gibson’s original definition. Gibson coined the term ‘a!ordance’ as follows

(all emphases are his):

The a!ordances of the environment are what it o!ers the animal, what it

provides or furnishes, either for good or ill. The verb to a!ord is found

394 Design Studies Vol 30 No. 4 July 2009

handles, and proceeds to apply a!ordances to architectural spaces in which he

introduces the technique of ‘a!ordance mapping’ to help architects think

about the a!ordances of their architectural designs. In a similar vein, Kim

et al. (2008) study the actual a!ordances of a building lobby and how they

vary between di!erent users. Whereas the above authors tend to focus on tech-

niques for using the concept of a!ordance in architecture, our focus in this pa-

per is a thorough application of a!ordances on a theoretical level which should

underlie subsequent practical applications.

1.2 Examples of a!ordancesThe concept of a!ordance is perhaps most easily understood through some

simple examples. Gibson gives the following examples:

! ‘If a terrestrial surface is nearly horizontal (instead of slanted), nearly flat

(instead of convex or concave), and su"ciently extended (relative to the

size of the animal) and if its substance is rigid (relative to the weight of

the animal), then the surface a!ords support’

! ‘Terrestrial surfaces, of course, are also climb-on-able or fall-o!-able or get-

underneath-able or bump-into-able relative to the animal. Di!erent layouts

a!ord di!erent behaviors for di!erent animals’

! ‘Air a!ords breathing, more exactly, respiration. It also a!ords unimpeded

locomotion relative to the ground. when illuminated and fog-free, it af-

fords visual perception. It also a!ords the perception of vibratory events

by means of sound fields and the perception of volatile sources by means

of odor fields’

! ‘Solids a!ord various kinds of manufacture, depending on the kind of solid

state. Some, such as flint, can be chipped; others, such as clay, can be

molded; still others recover their original shape after deformation; and

some resist deformation strongly’ (Gibson, 1979)

Pertaining to architecture specifically, the following examples of a!ordances

may be helpful:

! Buildings have many high-level a!ordances, including a!ording shelter to

occupants from the exterior environment, a!ording aesthetics to occupants

and passers-by, a!ording storage of goods, a!ording comfort to occupants

through climate control, etc. More detailed a!ordances can better be

analyzed by looking at specific building elements.

! Windows a!ord the transmission of light, and hence illumination of the in-

terior environment as well as a view of the exterior environment. Operable

windows may also a!ord the exchange of air, and in extreme cases even

defenestration.

! Floors a!ord the support of occupants’ weight, as well as furniture, the at-

tachment of finish materials, the routing of utilities, and in some cases even

drainage.

396 Design Studies Vol 30 No. 4 July 2009

Notice how some of the above a!ordances are positive, i.e., beneficial to the

user, such as the lights, air and views through windows. Other a!ordances

are negative, i.e., harmful to users, such as defenestration through windows.

With both Gibson’s and our examples of a!ordances in mind, for both envi-

ronmental things and architectural elements respectively, we can now general-

ize the concept in order to apply it to the design of artifacts in general and

architecture in particular. This is accomplished in the context of two distinct

classes of a!ordances, artifact-user a!ordances and artifact-artifact a!ordan-

ces, as discussed next.

1.3 About artifacteuser a!ordances (AUA)A!ordances always express a complimentary relationship between two sepa-

rate systems. In Gibson’s original formulation, one is the environment, and

the other is an animal situated in it. For design, and especially for architec-

ture, we can view the environment as the built environment, i.e., artifacts,

and consider the typical animals in them to be in fact human users. Hence

the usual a!ordances of interest exist between artifacts and users. We call

these ‘artifact-user a!ordances’ (AUA).

A!ordances are distinguished from other types of interaction by the potential

usefulness of the relationship. Other types of relationships, such as ownership,

or even the artifact’s actual use by the user are not a!ordances. An a!ordance

indicates the potential for a behavior, but not the actual occurrence of that behav-

ior. As Gibson pointed-out, individual properties of either the artifact (color,

density, size, etc.) or the user (strength, age, height, etc.) are not in and of them-

selves a!ordances, but taken together can determine whether a specific a!ord-

ance exists, such as the ability of a specific person to walk on a specific floor.

Note also that an a!ordance must first exist before the behavior a!orded can

ever be exhibited. For example, the a!ordance of visibility through a window

is one type of interaction, while the behavior of a person looking through thewin-

dow is a di!erent type of interaction, but the two are related because the window

must (first) a!ord visibility before it can (second) ever actually be gazed through.

1.4 About artifacteartifact a!ordances (AAA)Ana!ordance does not need to be perceived for that a!ordance still to exist. This

means that the human user does not need to even be present for the a!ordance to

exist. Taking another step of abstraction, we recognize that an a!ordance ex-

presses a relationship between two (or more) subsystems in which a behavior

can manifest between the two subsystems that either subsystem cannot manifest

in isolation.Examples exist of course between artifacts andusers (e.g., turnability

of a door-knob, readability of a sign) betweenmultiple users (e.g., conversations,

mating, fighting, etc.), and finally betweenmultiple artifacts (e.g., walls a!ording

support to roofs, sprinklers a!ording suppression of fires). We call the latter re-

lationships ‘artifact-artifact a!ordances’ (AAA).

An a!ordance-based approach to architectural theory, design, and practice 397

Obviously buildings must be designed to a!ord desired uses to its occupants

and other stakeholders, however, the components of the building must be de-

signed to have a!ordances as well. The behaviors of these a!ordances may be

realized in practice, such as walls supporting roof loads, or may be designed

simply as contingencies that may never be realized, such as fire suppression,

or extreme loading by snow, hurricanes, or floods.

It is important to note that whereas an AUA expresses a relationship that is

directly useful to users (including the meaning of architectural elements as dis-

cussed in Section 2.3), an AAA expresses a relationship that is indirectly useful

to users. Floors must support users walking on them, however, walls must

support roofs, but this is ultimately to protect users within the building.

1.5 A!ordances and system behaviorWhether an a!ordance exists, and what quality the a!ordance is, depends upon

the structure of both of the subsystems involved. A thicker, stronger floor af-

fords support to heavy occupants better than a thinner, weaker floor. However,

a thinner, weaker floor may be adequate to support lighter users, such as chil-

dren. In the case of AUA, designers have control over the structure of the arti-

facts they design, and thus over what a!ordances exist with respect to specific

users, over whom they usually do not have control. In the case of AAA, de-

signers have control over both artifacts, but still need to design the a!ordance

and resulting behavior ultimately to benefit or to protect human users.

At this point three basic categories can be identified as essential to any a!ord-

ance relationship. The first is structure (of artifacts and/or users), the second,

behavior (again, or artifacts and/or users), and the third, purpose. The funda-

mental relation between these categories is that systems a!ord behaviors via

their structure for a purpose. This is a more detailed adaptation of the dictum

from general systems theory that ‘structure influences behavior’ (cf., Senge,

1990). Essentially, we have used the generalized concept of a!ordances to

describe how structure influences behavior, and to what ends.

Structure determines what a!ordances exist. The a!ordances indicate what

behaviors are possible, whether or not they are ever expressed. The ultimate use-

fulness of the a!ordance to users (directly in the case ofAUA, or indirectly in the

case of AAA) is the purpose of the system and its organization. In the next sub-

section we o!er a specific architectural example, using the theory of a!ordances

to understand some well publicized failures of modern architecture.

1.6 A motivating example using the concept of a!ordanceto understand building failureHermetically designed concepts for high-rise housing towers provide an exam-

ple of how unintentional social behaviors develop in structures that inherently

398 Design Studies Vol 30 No. 4 July 2009

a!ord those behaviors. Modern masters such as Le Corbusier, in his austere

high-rise multi-family housing projects, significantly influenced a generation

of housing schemes in urban environments in the International Style. Modern-

ist ideals were evident in the design of the failed public housing developments

such as Pruitt-Igoe in St. Louis and Cabrini Green in Chicago, although the

lessons learned following the occupation of the buildings by the tenants clearly

show that there was a gap between the intentions of the design and the ensuing

behaviors of the tenants (cf., Hillier, 2007). The building achieved its intended

a!ordances of providing high density, inexpensive housing. Its failure was due

to the multiple macro-scale unintended negative a!ordances that resulted in

such bad actual living conditions.

Although it is a myth that Pruitt-Igoe ever received any kind of architectural

prize, some of its design features that were initially praised, such as the design

of the elevators and hallways (Figure 1a), soon ‘proved to be opportune envi-

ronments for violent crime’ (Bristol, 1991). Due to a variety of factors, includ-

ing demographic shifts within the city, poor management and maintenance, as

well as actual design flaws, three of the high-rise towers of Pruitt-Igoe were in-

tentionally demolished in 1972 by the St. Louis Housing Authority

(Figure 1b), just 18 years after their completion in 1954. We suggest that if

the a!ordances of the proposed buildings had been better understood in the

design stage, then the building design could have been modified so the building

would not a!ord the undesirable behaviors later experienced by the tenants.

Recently developed strategies for identifying and understanding a!ordances

in the design process are discussed in the next section.

1.7 Strategies for identifying and understanding a!ordancesin the design processTwo design tools have recently been developed to help designers identify and

manage a!ordances with respect to user behaviors and artifact structures in

the design stage. The Function Task Interaction Matrix (FTIM) proposed

by Galvao and Sato (2005) identifies a!ordances as the intersection between

artifact structure and user tasks. While Galvao and Sato (2005, 2006) origi-

nally demonstrated the FTIM with consumer products such as cell phones

and digital cameras, Kim et al. (2007) have applied the FTIM to identify 28

a!ordances to guide their design of the interior of a conference room. They

conclude ‘It is more systematic and e!ective to use these relationships in the

design of [a] conference room to meet specific needs of users rather than to

only rely on designer’s experience and knowledge’.

Another matrix based design tool to aid designers in understanding and man-

aging the impact of artifact structure on a!ordances is the A!ordance Struc-

ture Matrix (ASM) which is being developed by the present authors (Maier

et al., 2007b, 2008). Using an ASM, changes to artifact structure can be traced

to the a!ordances that depend on each structural element. Thereby

An a!ordance-based approach to architectural theory, design, and practice 399

possibilities for improving positive a!ordances and mitigating negative a!or-

dances can be explored during conceptual design. Methods for designing indi-

vidual a!ordances have also been introduced by the present authors (Maier

and Fadel, 2003).

Finally, Tweed (2001) has begun investigating explicit representation of a!or-

dances in computer-aided architectural design software. Although research

into applying a!ordance-based design theory to the design of architectural

elements is on-going, as discussed further in Section 3, we suggest that the care-

ful application of even these early concepts and tools can produce better archi-

tecture with better a!ordances and less tendency for failure.

2 Application to architectural theory and design

2.1 Historical separation of form and function in architectureAs the preceding example illustrates, an understanding of the relationship be-

tween form (or more generally, structure) and function (or more generally,

Figure 1 Demolition of

Pruitt-Igoe housing project

(! Newman, 1996)

400 Design Studies Vol 30 No. 4 July 2009

other stakeholders involved in the design process. According to Hamilton

(2003), architects are accustomed to casual investigation as opposed to scien-

tific rigor, i.e., not establishing any clear hypotheses with subsequent claims

that can be measured to build a knowledge base. When the design intentions

are not clearly articulated in the design process, it makes it di!cult to conduct

a post-occupancy evaluation to determine if the design is meeting measurable

objectives, e.g., with regard to safety, comfort, productivity, flexibility,

aesthetics, etc.

To respond to clients’ expectations, those involved with designing environ-

ments are seeking ways to advance their thinking and position themselves as

leaders capable of blending the creative arts and a credible knowledge base.

The appropriate application of the concept a"ordances may help to build

this knowledge base, by providing a means for comparing actual behaviors

with the intended a"ordances of a structure, and documenting solutions to

problems encountered in practice, so these problems can be avoided in future

projects. Such is the approach taken by the authors in the recent design of

a community wellness center (Battisto et al., 2006).

3.4 Applying a!ordance-based design to understandingarchitectural failuresThere are numerous examples of unintentional consequences that may be dis-

covered after an artifact is built. These consequences may be revealed after the

people begin to use the building, or as programs and operations evolve, and

they may change throughout the lifecycle of the artifact. Unintentional design

consequences within the domain of architecture include unexpected behaviors,

adaptation, interpretation error, signage, and obsolescence.

Unexpected behaviors occur when the a"ordances of designed structures were

not correctly understood, or when structures create an environment in which

novel behaviors can occur. Consequently, users interact with the designed

building in ways the designers either did not or could not anticipate. Just as

jumbo-jet air-liners were not designed to be missiles, but unfortunately a"ord

this use in the hands of terrorists, spectacular and symbolic architectural land-

marks such as theWorld Trade Center inNewYork and the Pentagon building

in Washington, D.C. a"ord targets for terrorism. The hallways of Pruitt-Igoe

were designed to foster community interaction but instead a"orded a haven

for criminals through which their prey had to traverse.

Adaptations are needed when a building structure does not a"ord desired be-

haviors, or a"ords undesired behaviors. Levy and Salvadori (1994) provide

many examples of adaptations to buildings over time due to unintentional

design consequences.

An a"ordance-based approach to architectural theory, design, and practice 407

Interpretation error occurs when a building is designed to a!ord one behavior,

but in practice a!ords a di!erent behavior. The external influences that shape

how an artifact is used over time may also alter the interpretation of that ar-

tifact. For example, the symbolic front door in American homes has changed

over time with the introduction of the automobile; meanwhile new entryways

to the house have influenced the reading of the house within the contemporary

culture. The physical nature of the front door has not changed, although the

pathway to the house is now viewed in terms of the automobile and has

been emphasized with the garage. The door still a!ords entry to the house,

but is now rarely used for that.

Signage is often used to compensate for the lack of properly designed a!ordan-

ces. Within any large institutional, educational or commercial building one can

see signs placed all over these facilities for the purpose of orienting the user, e.g.,

‘watch your step’, or ‘do not enter’. Better designs are those that do not need

signs because they indicate by their structure how they are to be used. For ex-

ample, the front entry doors to the Cooper Library at ClemsonUniversity were

recently changed. In the old design, the exterior handles a!orded both pulling

and pushing, although the doors only opened inward. To remedy the problem

of patrons’ consternation over frequently trying to pull the door open, signs

were installed instructing the user to ‘PUSH’ (Figure 2a). However, the handles

themselves were much larger than the signs, and users continued to try to pull

the doors open. Recently, the problem was resolved by replacing the handles

with push plates that only a!ord pushing and not pulling (Figure 2b). Note

that with the new push plates the signage for ‘PUSH’ is in fact redundant

because the plates only a!ord pushing, not pulling.

Obsolescence in artifacts may result when buildings a!ord specific uses, but do

not a!ord change. Often times, it is too expensive to rectify or to modify the

design of an artifact and it becomes prematurely demolished. In many cases,

these buildings are built with (i.e., to a!ord) a specific intended purpose, for

a temporary time period.

3.5 Additional ramifications of a!ordance-based designfor architectural practiceThe concept of a!ordance-based design also suggests a natural metric

against which various designs may be compared. Any design that a!ords

its intended purpose may be called a successful design. However, a design

that a!ords that same purpose while a!ording other desirable features

(such as user comfort, safety, durability, recyclability, etc.) may be viewed

as better. Furthermore, a design that does a!ord everything it is supposed

to do, while also a!ording something it is not supposed to do, is worse

than a comparable design that only a!ords what it is supposed to do. It is

also important to remember that a!ordance is not always a clear ‘has’ or

408 Design Studies Vol 30 No. 4 July 2009

‘has not’ distinction. One artifact may a!ord a desired use better than

another.

Moreover, the a!ordances of the artifact can di!er with respect to di!erent

users. The concept of ‘environmental role’ developed by the British psycholo-

gist David Canter clearly supports this premise. Building from his general the-

ory of place as mentioned earlier, ‘environmental role’ is a particular set of

associated behaviors and rules within a particular place that vary according

to the relationship between an individual and place (Canter, 1977). He argues

Figure 2 Front entry doors to

the Cooper Library at Clem-

son University

An a!ordance-based approach to architectural theory, design, and practice 409

for architectural design and practice. We commend the concept of a!ordance

as an important tenet within such a theory.

AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank Chris Pagano of the Department of Psychology at

Clemson University for his many valuable comments on drafts of the paper.

We would also like to thank Peg Tyler, Associate Librarian in the Clemson

University Libraries for graciously providing the photographs of the door

handles on the Cooper Library. We also thank the anonymous reviewers of

earlier drafts of this paper for their helpful comments, especially with respect

to the Pruitt-Igoe example and the scale of a!ordances.

1. Lewin argued that behavior in general could be viewed generally as a function of theinteraction between people and the environment. Based on his research a formula wasderived: B" f (P, E, P#E), where behavior (B) is a function (f) of person (P) and envi-ronment (E) and the interaction between the two (P# E).

ReferencesAiarchitect (2003) AIA national convention and exposition, <http://www.aia.org/aiarchitect/thisweek03/tw0509/convention2003.asp> (accessed 12.10.07)Astin, A W and Holland, J L (1961) The environmental assessment technique:a way to measure college environments, Journal of Educational Psychology Vol52 pp 308e316Battisto D, et al (October 2006) A green community wellness center: expandingthe scope of design for health, AIA Academy JournalBristol, K G (1991) The Pruitt-Igoe myth, Journal of Architectural Education Vol44 No 3 pp 163e171Brown, D C and Blessing, L (2005) The relationship between function and afford-ance, in ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Longview, CA,Paper No. DETC2005e85017Canter, D (1977) The psychology of place Architectural Press, LondonCanter, D and Walker, E (1980) Environmental role and the conceptualizations ofhousing, Journal of Architectural Research Vol 7 No 3 pp 30e35Cherry, E (1998) Programming for design: from theory to practice John Wiley &Sons, New YorkCraik, H K and Feimer, N R (1987) Environmental assessment in Handbook ofenvironmental psychology, John Wiley & Sons, New York pp 891e918Duerk, D (1993) Architectural programming: information management for designJohn Wiley & Sons, New YorkEco, U (1979) A theory of semiotics Indiana University Press, Bloomington, INGalvao, A B and Sato, K (2004) Human-centered system architecture: a frameworkfor interpreting and applying user needs, in ASME Conference on Design Theoryand Methodology, Salt Lake City, UT, Paper No. DETC2004-57545Galvao, A B and Sato, K (2005) Affordances in product architecture: linking tech-nical functions and user requirements, in ASME Conference on Design Theoryand Methodology, Long Beach, CA, Paper No. DETC2005-84525Galvao, A B and Sato, K (2006) Incorporating affordances into product architec-ture: methodology and case study, in ASME Conference on Design Theory andMethodology, Philadelphia, PA, Paper No. DETC2006-99404

An a!ordance-based approach to architectural theory, design, and practice 411

Gibson, J J (1976) The theory of affordances and the design of the environmentSymposium on Perception in Architecture, American Society for Esthetics, Tor-onto, October 1976. Republished as Chapter 4.9, Part VIII in E Reed andR Jones (eds) Reasons for realism: selected essays of James J. Gibson (1982),Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, USAGibson, J J (1979) The theory of affordances in The ecological approach to visualperception, Houghton Mi#in, Hopewell, NJ, USAGibson, E J (2000) Perceptual learning in development: some basic concepts,Ecological Psychology Vol 12 No 4 pp 295e302Hamilton, D K (1999) Innovations in planning for healthcare The Center for Inno-vations in Health Facilities, College Station, TX, USAHamilton, D K (2003) The four levels of evidence-based practice, HealthcareDesign Vol 3 No 4Hershberger, R (1999) Architectural programming and predesign managerMcGraw-Hill Professional, New YorkHillier, B (2007) Space is the machine: a configurational theory of architectureSpace Syntax, London, UKKahana, E (1982) A congruence model of personeenvironment interaction inM P Lawton, P G Windley and T O Byerts (eds) Aging and environment: theoret-ical approaches, Springer, New YorkKasmar, J V (1970) The development of a usable lexicon if environmental descrip-tors, Environment and Behavior Vol 2 pp 153e169Kim, Y S, et al (2007) Affordances in interior design: a case study of affordancesin interior design of conference room using enhanced function and task interac-tion, in ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Las Vegas,NV, Paper No. DETC2007-35864Kim, Y S, et al (2008) Personal cognitive characteristics in affordance perception:the user activity case study in a building lobby, in ASME Conference on DesignTheory and Methodology, New York, NY, Paper No. DETC2008-50063Koutamanis, A (2006) Buildings and affordances in J S Gero (ed) Int’l conferenceon design computing and cognition, Springer, New York pp 345e364Kumlin, R (1995) Architectural programming: creative techniques for design profes-sionals McGraw-Hill Professional, New YorkKruft, H (1994) A history of architectural theory from Vitruvius to the presentPrinceton Architectural Press, New YorkLawton, M P (1982) Competence, environmental press and adaptation inM P Lawton, P G Windley and T O Byerts (eds) Aging and environment: theoret-ical approaches, Springer, New YorkLawton, M P and Nahemow, L (1973) Ecology and the aging process inC Eisdorfer and M P Lawton (eds) Psychology of adult development and aging,American Psychological Association, Washington, DCLevy, M and Salvadori, M (1994) Why buildings fall down W.W. Norton & Com-pany, New YorkLewin, K (1951) Field theory in social sciences University of Chicago Press,ChicagoMaier, J R A (2005) Foundations of a!ordance based design, Ph.D. Dissertation,Department of Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University, Clemson, SC 29634Maier, J R A, et al (2007a) A computational framework for semantically rich de-sign problems based on the theory of affordances and exemplar technology inInternational Conference on Engineering Design, Paris, France, Paper No.ICED’07/510Maier, J R A, et al (2007b) The affordance structure matrix e a conceptexploration and attention directing tool for affordance based design, in ASME

412 Design Studies Vol 30 No. 4 July 2009

Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Las Vegas, NV, Paper No.DETC2007-34526Maier, J R A, et al (2008) Extending the affordance structure matrix e mappingdesign structure and requirements to behavior, in 10th International Design Struc-ture Matrix Conference, DSM ’08, Stockholm, SwedenMaier, J R A and Fadel, G M (2001) Affordance: the fundamental concept inengineering design, in ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology,Pittsburgh, PA, Paper No. DETC2001/DTM-21700Maier, J R A and Fadel, G M (2002) Comparing function and affordance as basesfor design, in ASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Montreal,Canada, Paper No. DETC2002/DTM-34029Maier, J R A and Fadel, G M (2003) Affordance-based methods for design, inASME Conference on Design Theory and Methodology, Chicago, IL, Paper No.DETC2003/DTM-48673Maier, J R A and Fadel, G M (2005) A case study contrasting german systematicengineering design with affordance based design, in ASME Conference on DesignTheory and Methodology, Long Beach, CA, Paper No. DETC2005-84954Maier, J R A and Fadel, G M (2007) Identifying affordances in InternationalConference on Engineering Design, Paris, France, Paper No. ICED’07/591Maier, J R A and Fadel, G M A!ordance based design: a relational theory fordesign, Research in Engineering Design, in press, doi:10.1007/s00163-008-0060-3.Moore, C W and Bloomer, K C (1977) Body, memory and architecture YaleUniversity Press, New Haven, CTMoore, G T (1987) Environment and behavior research in North America: historydevelopment, and unresolved issues in Handbook of environmental psychology,John Wiley & Sons, New York pp 1359e1410Murphy, R R (1999) Case studies of applying Gibson’s ecological approachto mobile robots, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, PartA: Systems and Humans Vol 29 No 1 pp 105e111Newman, O (1996) Creating defensible space U.S. Department of Housing andUrban Development, Washington, DCNorman, D A (1988) The design of everyday thingsCurrency Doubleday, New YorkNorman, D A (1999) Affordance, conventions and design, Interactions 1999;May/June Issue pp 38e43Pallasmaa, J (1986) The geometry of feeling: a look at the phenomenology of ar-chitecture Chapter 9, in K Nesbitt (ed) Theorizing a new agenda for architecture.An anthology of architectural theory 1965e1995, Princeton Architectural Press,New YorkPena, W (2001) Problem seeking: an architectural programming primer (4th edn)John Wiley & Sons, New YorkPirsig, R (1974) Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance Quill William Morrow,New YorkSchulz, N (1976) The phenomenon of place Rizzoli, New YorkSchulz, N (1988) Architecture, meaning and place: selected essays Rizzoli, NewYorkSenge, P M (1990) The fifth discipline: the art and practice of the learning organi-zation Currency Doubleday, New YorkTuan, Y (1980) Rootedness versus sense of place, Landscape Vol 24 No 1 pp 3e8Tweed, C (2001) Highlighting the affordances of designs, in B de Vries, J vanLeeuwen and H Achten (eds) Computer aided architectural design futures 2001,Kluwer, Dordrecht pp 681e696Venturi, R (1966) Complexity and contradictions in architecture Museum of Mod-ern Art/Doubleday, Garden City, NY

An a!ordance-based approach to architectural theory, design, and practice 413